Saturday, September 14, 2024, 3:11 PM
The possibility of the West authorising the use of its long-range missiles on Russian territory remains shrouded in mystery. Neither US President Joe Biden nor British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have said anything concrete on the matter following their meeting at the White House on Friday (early Saturday morning in Spain). Either, as rumoured, they have made a positive decision that will unfold without publicity in the coming weeks, or simply US caution prevails over not taking steps that lead to a direct confrontation with Russia.
The statements of the US National Security spokesman, John Kirby, at the end of the meeting are eloquent. “We have our own calculation about what we decide to provide to Ukraine and what not,” he specified, before stressing that Washington’s opposition to letting Kiev fire its most powerful rockets inside Russia has not budged one iota. For his part, the British Prime Minister made a statement on Saturday in which he assured that the meeting was “very productive” and that the two countries “have reached a strong position,” although he did not specify in what sense.
Expectations for the US-UK meeting had already cooled before the event itself, when sources from both administrations said there would be no concrete resolution. Speculation that the meeting would lead to the lifting of restrictions on Ukraine was first raised by Biden himself on Tuesday, who said that Washington and its allies were working on ways to increase the offensive power of the former Soviet republic.
Smokescreen
From kyiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky also fuelled this hypothesis, and British government sources added their dose by pointing out that Starmer was travelling to Washington to ask the American leader to let the Ukrainians fire their Storm Shadows at Russia. In fact, it is not clear that the subsequent silence is not just a smokescreen. The British Prime Minister has indicated that “the next few weeks and months could be crucial, very, very important, for us to support Ukraine in this vital war for freedom.”
One of the possibilities being considered is that the United States would authorize Ukrainian attacks in deeper areas of Russia than it is currently allowed to, using long-range British and French missiles. By not using American ammunition per se – because European missiles do incorporate parts or licenses ‘made in the USA’ – the White House interprets that the Kremlin would not take this as direct aggression on its part.
So far, kyiv can only operate short-range missiles in the Russian zone where attacks on Ukrainian territory are being orchestrated as a form of self-defense. Long-range missiles, on the other hand, can easily penetrate up to 200-300 kilometers into the territory, which for the Kremlin is already a full-blown aggression against the entire country. Moreover, this type of munition requires Western operators and satellites to guide it to distant targets.
Faced with the reluctance of the United States and countries such as Germany and France, which, as reported by Le Monde on Saturday, have begun to cultivate a marked ambiguity, President Zelensky maintains that deep strikes are the only way to reach Russian bombers that can cover long distances or drop bombs on Ukraine from places that anti-aircraft defences cannot reach. Zelensky is urging the United States and NATO allies because he understands that, the more time passes, the Russian government may move its air bases further into the country.
However, this is a very high-risk gamble. Russian leader Vladimir Putin has already warned against such a move, and the ambassador to the United Nations, Vasili Nebenzia, insisted on this before the UN Security Council on Friday. He stressed that the use of Western weapons inside his country would mean that “NATO would become a direct party to hostilities against a nuclear power.” “We must not forget this and think about the consequences,” added Nebenzia.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Saturday that there is a growing belief in Moscow that Ukraine will soon begin attacking with more advanced Western weapons because Kiev “has been given carte blanche and all the indulgences,” but he warned that Washington and London underestimate the risk.
“I don’t think about Putin”
Asked by a journalist at the end of their meeting, Joe Biden rejected Moscow’s threats with a “I just don’t usually think about Putin.” However, the statements of his National Security Advisor are quite different. Kirby explained that the Pentagon takes Putin’s warnings very seriously because it knows his capacity to reach an “escalation” in the confrontation. Biden measures all his steps because his priority is to avoid any decision that could have an aggressive response from Russia and end in “a third world war.” But he also has a personal concern: he has only four months left in the Government and he does not want to leave as a legacy to his successor, or successor, such a complex and deep conflict.
Aside from these concerns, the United States is looking at its arsenal and calculating the risks. In the Pentagon, many military officials and strategists believe that the missile reserves, not only its own but also those of Britain and other allies, are insufficient to change the course of the war even by striking closer to the Russian heartland. The Ministry of Defense has already warned the White House that it cannot send all its equipment to Ukraine, especially given the instability in the Middle East or Asia.
The latest reports from the war-torn region are not the most hopeful: the bombings are no longer causing as much damage on the other side of the border, as the Kremlin has begun to shield or transfer its main interests. In addition, the Russian army has launched a counterattack in Kursk and this week has evicted Ukrainian forces from a dozen conquered towns. The Russian government is relatively euphoric, although Zelensky has assured that this type of small defeats are already contemplated in his plans and other international analysts minimize their importance. In any case, Zelensky’s presidential advisor, Andriy Yermak, has urged today the US and NATO to take “firm decisions. Terrorism can be stopped by destroying the military installations where it originates.”
What does seem clear is that nuclear fear is once again at the forefront of a war that is now approaching its third year of existence. And one of the most adept at fuelling it is former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now second in command of the National Security Council. He has issued a message stating that his country is “running out of patience” and accused Ukraine of providing the Kremlin with arguments to resort to its nuclear or non-conventional arsenal, in which case kyiv would end up becoming “a giant, grey, melting stain”.
In this regard, an interview in the newspaper KP with academic Alexey Arbato on Saturday is noteworthy. Considered one of the leading experts on arms control, he heads the Department of International Security at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow. In his opinion, the current war will force the reform of the atomic doctrine because the drone bombings, the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk or the mere fact that kyiv can fire Western long-range missiles at any given moment represent an example of how the traditional policy of nuclear deterrence is no longer a reliable cover.
“All this was unthinkable four years ago,” Arbato said in Pravda, although he was convinced that the nuclear threat still has a strong power to intimidate “Ukraine and the West. They are very afraid. Otherwise, Ukraine would have been allowed to use long-range missiles deep within our territory a long time ago.”
The chess game
The academic is deeply concerned about the possible unpredictability of making important military decisions, such as the use of more powerful missiles, in the war in Ukraine. “You cannot start a game of chess knowing only the first move because the result will be disastrous.” And he warns that the West should not rely on the alleged obsolescence of Russian atomic material, as has been reported on occasions at the strategic level. “Only a part” of the arsenal “is enough to destroy all potential opponents.” Asked if he has ever considered building an anti-nuclear bunker, his answer is clear: “No way. I don’t want to live after an exchange of nuclear attacks.”
#calculation #decide #provide #provide #Ukraine #warns #Diario #Vasco